Post AsssUxZXyXMogOGy3M by gpowerf@mastodon.social
(DIR) More posts by gpowerf@mastodon.social
(DIR) Post #AssNlj1wCNGjvQ4Bwe by bortzmeyer@mastodon.gougere.fr
2025-04-08T08:56:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@neil There is at least one mistake from you: all IP addresses (v4 or V6) are indeed numerical. This is only the text form (used by humans but never on the wire) which can use hexadecimal (rendered by letters and digits).
(DIR) Post #AssOEZ1kT7W3IbjHt2 by bortzmeyer@mastodon.gougere.fr
2025-04-08T09:02:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@neil Indeed, the fact that the bill does not use standard #DNS terminology makes it difficult to read. 17(1) introduces a completely new and confusing definition of "registry". (It seems that (a) refer to authoritative name servers and (b) to resolvers.)
(DIR) Post #AssOZXm8Jn3ZUvQgfg by bortzmeyer@mastodon.gougere.fr
2025-04-08T09:05:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@neil Standard DNS terminology: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9499(Many comments to your toot don't use it, which make them hard to understand.)
(DIR) Post #Asss4HLAN15OAop80O by hazz223@mstdn.social
2025-04-08T08:16:40Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@neil The Domain Name one kinda makes some since...But the IP address one... That's like banning a Postcode?The person/people in it can just _move_? It _could_ ban geographical areas, but VPN's kinda kill that as you could just route the traffic?Maybe I'm missing something??
(DIR) Post #Asss4Ia5l0cS1OoYuO by bortzmeyer@mastodon.gougere.fr
2025-04-08T14:36:19Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@hazz223 @neil There is a lot of experience and documentation about censorship techniques. Blocking an IP address is common in China, for instance. See RFC 9505 for all the details https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9505
(DIR) Post #Asss7XkfoFVvwQJLo8 by bortzmeyer@mastodon.gougere.fr
2025-04-08T14:36:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@neil @hazz223 Not sure that the authors of the bill understand the difference between allocation (the RIR) and routing (the operator).
(DIR) Post #AsssERrY6TK9hgoswi by hazz223@mstdn.social
2025-04-08T08:37:48Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@neil 100% my bad. I should have read your article fully before commenting. Lesson learned there!Having now read it... Yeah I'm now confused 😂. So I guess the IP address one is going to effect data centers/cloud providers/ISP's most, as they tend to work with the allocated IP's directly. Mean while the Domain Name one... I can't get a handle on? Is it talking about DNS servers, and basically saying "Hey, you can't route to that address"?
(DIR) Post #AsssESraNowoo5qQds by bortzmeyer@mastodon.gougere.fr
2025-04-08T14:38:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@hazz223 @neil Lying DNS resolvers are a very common censorship technique in the European Union. See RFC 9505 for details https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9505 or see https://labs.ripe.net/author/stephane_bortzmeyer/dns-censorship-dns-lies-as-seen-by-ripe-atlas/ (ten years old)
(DIR) Post #AsssUxZXyXMogOGy3M by gpowerf@mastodon.social
2025-04-08T08:34:37Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@neil I find this kind of policy frustrating because it rarely takes the technical realities into account. When they talk about “banning a domain,” what they likely mean is modifying DNS records through UK-based providers.As for banning IP addresses, that would involve either compelling service providers to block access to specific IPs, or implementing a nationwide firewall—something akin to China’s model. Either way, it’s impossible to fully enforce, especially across borders.
(DIR) Post #AsssUyaIDFYdozd4r2 by bortzmeyer@mastodon.gougere.fr
2025-04-08T14:41:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@gpowerf @neil "it’s impossible to fully enforce" This is not a valid argument. Many laws are impossible to enforce 100%. We ban thief and murder even if we know it cannot be fully enforced.Technical means can be useful but the law is more than just technical solutions.
(DIR) Post #AsssfnY1aRRKmGjEye by wishy@tooter.wishy.co.uk
2025-04-08T11:24:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@neil one thing to ponder, they seem to think an individual IP address can be blocked by a provider, but the minimum advertisable address is a /24 or /48.
(DIR) Post #AsssfoZ7npujvyFdKa by bortzmeyer@mastodon.gougere.fr
2025-04-08T14:43:08Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@wishy @neil Irrelevant: you can block individual IP addresses on any firewall (yes, this assumes everyone is behind a giant firewall but the bill does not deal with technical implementation, or side-effects of such a giant firewall).
(DIR) Post #AssvqdQXr4rOR95aeu by wishy@tooter.wishy.co.uk
2025-04-08T15:18:43Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bortzmeyer @neil or router ACL, or any other number of options. But there legislation doesn't seem to target transit providers, only 'IP address providers'. Presumably RIPE might be in scope, but they only deal with blocks, not individual IPs. Alternatively hosting providers, but they'd likely find it a lot easier just to terminate the users service, if they are minded to do anything.
(DIR) Post #Ast5uMyfxGnE7TTOEq by tomjennings@tldr.nettime.org
2025-04-08T17:11:31Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@neil What about cnamed sites? Yeah little of this makes sense, the terminology is the problem. They don't understand dns.